Baby Boomers aka the Worst Generation

[UsualName]

usual name...
please do tell us...
and then explain how Reagans tax cuts hurt the 50 percent of Americans who don't pay Federal income tax more that the 99.5 percent who still pay income tax?

any ration person would say that if the wealth is being concentrated into the to .5 percent or so...
you should eliminate the taxes on the others...( my preferred solution)

or or tax that upper half percent more. taxing the 99.5 of workers causes more disparity.

I see you don’t have patience to go through this in it’s entirety. That’s fine. Basically, the uneven distribution of the tax cuts put more wealth in the hands of the ultra wealthy while encouraging paper investments. This weakened the consumer’s ability to earn higher wages.

It’s all about economic activity and the velocity of money. When wealth concentrates, it slows the movement of money through the economy. This was the effect of the Reagan tax cuts. Higher concentrations of wealth in the wealthiest households leads to less broad based growth, or what is better known as “shared prosperity.” This is why the lions share of income growth has occurred at the highest income households and why the middle class is getting crush under inflation.

There are also other important economic norms that were crushed under Reagan as well such as unionized workers that contributed.

And to your point about income tax, there are many tax payers who pay a higher effective rate than the wealthiest tax payers, even though they may net $0 income tax paid. The payroll taxes are recessive and so are property taxes at the state level. It’s important to remember our government isn’t funded solely on income taxes.

 

[jem]

I am still not clear on much of your argument Usual Name.
Are you saying we should be using income taxes to regulate income disparity?

Cutting taxes puts more money into circulation not less. When Reagan cut taxes more people had more to spend and invest and the economy boomed.

We agree inflation hurts those who do not have the assets that outpace inflation coupled with progressive taxation. High taxation and inflation are one of the biggest causes of wealth disparity. (govt policies are another other big factor. Finally perhaps we need some trust busting)

Your final point is actually my point.

Increasing taxes on anyone but the top .2 to 5 percent causes more disparity.
We should eliminate income taxes on all but the 99.5% or fewer if we wish to help balance out income or wealth disparity.

 

[UsualName]

I am still not clear on much of your argument Usual Name.
Are you saying we should be using income taxes to regulate income disparity?

Cutting taxes puts more money into circulation not less. When Reagan cut taxes more people had more to spend and invest and the economy boomed.

We agree inflation hurts those who do not have the assets that outpace inflation coupled with progressive taxation. High taxation and inflation are one of the biggest causes of wealth disparity. (govt policies are another other big factor. Finally perhaps we need some trust busting)

Your final point is actually my point.

Increasing taxes on anyone but the top .2 to 5 percent causes more disparity.
We should eliminate income taxes on all but the 99.5% or fewer if we wish to help balance out income or wealth disparity.

Economics is complicated and that’s why I tried to go through point by point.

Yes, the economy boomed but there was not shared prosperity is the point. I was trying to get into how hoarding wealth slows down the velocity of money and it’s effect on wages, coupled with deficits and inflation during periods of growth but we got side tracked.

 

[UsualName]

Economics is complicated and that’s why I tried to go through point by point.

Yes, the economy boomed but there was not shared prosperity is the point. I was trying to get into how hoarding wealth slows down the velocity of money and it’s effect on wages, coupled with deficits and inflation during periods of growth but we got side tracked.

To add to my point:

Skip to content
Axios




Alayna Treene 5 hours ago
Marco Rubio: No proof tax cuts poured money back into American workers

Republican Sen. Marco Rubio. Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Republican Senator Marco Rubio acknowledged in an interview with The Economist that the GOP tax cuts may not be as beneficial to the American worker as Republicans are painting it to be.

"There is still a lot of thinking on the right that if big corporations are happy, they’re going to take the money they’re saving and reinvest it in American workers. In fact they bought back shares, a few gave out bonuses; there’s no evidence whatsoever that the money’s been massively poured back into the American worker.”
— Sen. Marco Rubio

 

[jem]

1. You claimed the problems were because of "Reaganomics and the fallacy of tax cuts for the wealthy benefit the working people. The country is weak and the only benefit was to a very few people who were already wealthy. "

you arguments about Reagans tax cuts have failed because I pointed out that we have 40 to 60 new americans brought in from other countries or through anchor babies and that the economy boomed.

So now because economics is complicated you are talking about hording wealth.
Which is typically caused by tax increases not tax cuts.



2. I already stated I am not defending Trumps tax cuts. I told you they were in part designed to screw people who make six figures in blue states. Trump and the establishment republicans were assholes to not give workers and earners real tax cuts.

second hording money has nothing to do with claiming reagans tax cuts harmed people... which was you pr

 

[Nine_Ender]

typical straw man lies from a neo commie.

I have stated if you hold fed money creation constant and cap spending... we will come into balance via and expanded economy causing and increase in tax revenues or or via inflation.

so... go ahead milton explain why that statement is incorrect.
Why do lefties always have lie about the other sides arguments?

You are a walking, talking example of how so many Americans have totally lost it these days; I attribute it to a generation of Americans that had it easy for many years and can't handle the new challenges since the financial meltdown in 2008 in your country.

All these conspiracy theories and calling people "neo commie" or "lefty" isn't going to reduce your medical insurance premiums or reduce your personal income taxes. It isn't going to increase mine in Canada. You helped to craft your situation and maybe you should appreciate what the glory days of the US gave you, retrench and adapt, and get real with your attitude and ideas. If you can.

 

[UsualName]

1. You claimed the problems were because of "Reaganomics and the fallacy of tax cuts for the wealthy benefit the working people. The country is weak and the only benefit was to a very few people who were already wealthy. "

you arguments about Reagans tax cuts have failed because I pointed out that we have 40 to 60 new americans brought in from other countries or through anchor babies and that the economy boomed.

So now because economics is complicated you are talking about hording wealth.
Which is typically caused by tax increases not tax cuts.



2. I already stated I am not defending Trumps tax cuts. I told you they were in part designed to screw people who make six figures in blue states. Trump and the establishment republicans were assholes to not give workers and earners real tax cuts.

second hording money has nothing to do with claiming reagans tax cuts harmed people... which was you pr

Economics IS complicated. Hoarding money is the point and an effect of Reaganomics, more broadly.

There is no such thing as anchor babies. It’s a slander of American children. Those kids are the same as yours and mine. If you want to change the law going forward, that’s fine but dividing Americans isn’t the way to go.

 

[jem]

you purposely misrepresented my argument about how the budget would come into balance.
(I have called out at least 3 of the lefties on elitetrader or using this strawman argumentation in the last 3 months and now you just did it.)
then instead of explaining you mis understanding you chose to go with "conspiracy theory"

and you wonder why I call you a leftist.

You are a walking, talking example of how so many Americans have totally lost it these days; I attribute it to a generation of Americans that had it easy for many years and can't handle the new challenges since the financial meltdown in 2008 in your country.

All these conspiracy theories and calling people "neo commie" or "lefty" isn't going to reduce your medical insurance premiums or reduce your personal income taxes. It isn't going to increase mine in Canada. You helped to craft your situation and maybe you should appreciate what the glory days of the US gave you, retrench and adapt, and get real with your attitude and ideas. If you can.

 

[jem]

Usual name please explain how tax cuts cause people to hoard money.
you can't just say that hoarding money is the effect of reaganomics... you have to show it.

 

[jem]

I had a meeting this morning.

Again, I am bothered by my typos.
I will attempt to post less frequently.
I will attempt to refrain from posting if I don't have the time to properly compose a post.

But, nevertheless, Nine_Ender I find it funny that you object to being called a lefty or a neo commie yet you use 2 of their favorite techniques.
The misrepresentation of the other side argument and labeling a argument a conspiracy theory.

Finally, are you denying you are a lefty?